Efficacy and safety of Xiyanping injection in the treatment of COVID-19: A multicenter, prospective, open-label and randomized controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhang XY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8242486 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:To compare the efficacy and safety of Sulosin D (PACIFICPHARMA, Korea) and Harnal D (ASTELLAS PHARMA KOREA, Korea) in treating patients with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).This randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter non-inferiority study was conducted at four sites in Korea. We randomly assigned 123 patients with an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ?12 to receive either Sulosin D or Harnal D treatment for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was the mean change in IPSS from baseline to endpoint. Secondary outcomes were the mean change from baseline to endpoint in IPSS quality of life subscores, maximum uroflowmetry (Qmax), and post-voiding residuals (PVR).In all, 123 patients were randomly assigned (60 Sulosin D and 63 Harnal D). The changes in the total IPSS from baseline in the Sulosin D- and Harnal D-treated groups were -4.97 and -4.03, respectively. There were significant decreases compared with baseline in both groups. The mean difference (Sulosin D - Harnal D) was -0.91 (with a two-sided 90% confidence interval), inferring that Sulosin D was not inferior to Harnal D. The mean changes in the IPSS subscore, Qmax, and PVR from baseline were comparable between the groups (both p>0.05). During the treatment periods, the incidence of adverse events was 23.33% and 34.92% in the Sulosin D and Harnal D groups, respectively (p=0.1580).We demonstrate the non-inferiority of Sulosin D to Harnal D in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with BPH.
| S-EPMC3312066 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundNephrotic syndrome that is resistant to steroid therapy is termed refractory nephrotic syndrome (RNS), a condition that is associated with an increased risk of end-stage renal disease. Immunosuppressants are used to treat RNS; however, prolonged use may lead to significant adverse effects. Mizoribine (MZR) is a novel agent used in long-term immunosuppressive therapy, which has few adverse effects, but data on its long-term use in patients with RNS are unavailable.ObjectiveWe propose a trial to examine the efficacy and safety of MZR compared with cyclophosphamide (CYC) in Chinese adult patients with RNS.MethodsThis is a multicenter, randomized, controlled interventional study with a screening phase (1 week) and a treatment phase (52 weeks). This study has been reviewed and approved by the Medical Ethics Committees of all 34 medical centers that are participating. Patients with RNS consent to participation, and are enrolled and randomized to an MZR group or a CYC group (1:1 ratio), with each group receiving tapering doses of oral corticosteroids. Participants are assessed for adverse effects, and laboratory results are collected at 8 visits during the treatment phase (weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 32, 44, and 52 [exit visit]). Participants are able to withdraw voluntarily, and investigators are required to remove patients when there are safety concerns or deviations from the protocol.ResultsThe study started in November 2014 and was completed in March 2019. A total of 239 participants from 34 hospitals in China have been enrolled. Data analysis has been completed. The results are being finalized by the Center for Drug Evaluation.ConclusionsThis study examines the safety and efficacy of MZR as a long-term treatment approach for Chinese adults with RNS. It is the longest lasting and largest randomized controlled trial to examine MZR in Chinese patients. The results can help determine whether RNS should be considered as an additional indication for MZR treatment in China.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02257697; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02257697.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR1-10.2196/46101.
| S-EPMC10337463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is limited information regarding the optimal third-line therapy for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) that is inadequately controlled using dual combination therapy. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of pioglitazone or glimepiride when added to metformin plus alogliptin treatment for T2DM. METHODS:This multicenter, randomized, active-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02426294) recruited 135 Korean patients with T2DM that was inadequately controlled using metformin plus alogliptin. The patients were then randomized to also receive pioglitazone (15 mg/day) or glimepiride (2 mg/day) for a 26-week period, with dose titration was permitted based on the investigator's judgement. RESULTS:Glycosylated hemoglobin levels exhibited similar significant decreases in both groups during the treatment period (pioglitazone: -0.81%, P<0.001; glimepiride: -1.05%, P<0.001). However, the pioglitazone-treated group exhibited significantly higher high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (P<0.001) and significantly lower homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance values (P<0.001). Relative to pioglitazone, adding glimepiride to metformin plus alogliptin markedly increased the risk of hypoglycemia (pioglitazone: 1/69 cases [1.45%], glimepiride: 14/66 cases [21.21%]; P<0.001). CONCLUSION:Among patients with T2DM inadequately controlled using metformin plus alogliptin, the addition of pioglitazone provided comparable glycemic control and various benefits (improvements in lipid profiles, insulin resistance, and hypoglycemia risk) relative to the addition of glimepiride.
| S-EPMC7043969 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe outbreak of COVID-19 (caused by SARS-Cov-2) is very serious, and no effective antiviral treatment has yet been confirmed. The adage "old drug, new trick" in this context may suggest the important therapeutic potential of existing drugs. We found that the lopinavir/ritonavir treatment recommended in the fifth edition of the Treatment Plan of China can only help to improve a minority of throat-swab nucleic-acid results (3/15) in hospitals. Our previous use of chloroquine to treat patients with COVID-19 infection showed an improvement in more throat-swab nucleic-acid results (5/10) than the use of lopinavir/ritonavir.Methods/designThis is a prospective, open-label, randomized controlled, multicenter clinical study. The study consists of three phases: a screening period, a treatment period of no more than 10 days, and a follow-up period for each participant. Participants with COVID-19 infection who are eligible for selection for the study will be randomly allocated to the trial group or the control group. The control group will be given lopinavir/ritonavir treatment for no more than 10 days. The trial group will be given chloroquine phosphate treatment for no more than 10 days. The primary outcome is the clinical recovery time at no more than 28 days after the completion of therapy and follow-up. The secondary outcomes include the rate of treatment success after the completion of therapy and follow-up, the time of treatment success after no more than 28 days, the rate of serious adverse events during the completion of therapy and follow-up, and the time to return to normal temperature (calculated from the onset of illness) during the completion of therapy and follow-up. Comparisons will be performed using two-sided tests with a statistical significance level of 5%.DiscussionThis experiment should reveal the efficacy and safety of using chloroquine versus lopinavir/ritonavir for patients with mild/general COVID-19 infection. If the new treatment including chloroquine shows a higher rate of throat-swab SARS-CoV-2 real-time fluorescent reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity and is safe, it could be tested as a future COVID-19 treatment.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry, ID: ChiCTR2000029741 . Registered on 11 February 2020.
| S-EPMC7341476 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionClinical data of esaxerenone in hypertensive patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) are lacking. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of esaxerenone in patients with DKD and an inadequate response to blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment.MethodsIn this multicenter, open-label, prospective study, patients were divided into urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio subcohorts (UACR < 30, 30 to < 300, and 300 to < 1000 mg/gCr). Esaxerenone was initiated at 1.25 mg/day and followed by incremental dose escalation based on BP and serum potassium level monitoring. The treatment period was 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in morning home systolic BP/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) from baseline to end of treatment (EOT). Secondary endpoints included achievement rate of target BP, change in UACR from baseline, and safety.ResultsIn total, 113 patients were enrolled. Morning home SBP/DBP significantly decreased from baseline to EOT in the total population (- 11.6/- 5.2 mmHg, both p < 0.001) and in all UACR subcohorts (all p < 0.001). The target BP achievement rate was 38.5%. Significant reductions in bedtime home and office BPs were also shown in the total population and all UACR subcohorts. UACR significantly improved from baseline to EOT in the total (- 50.9%, p < 0.001) and all UACR subcohorts (all p < 0.001). Incidence of serum potassium elevation as drug-related treatment emergent adverse events was 2.7%. The change from baseline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was - 4.8 mL/min/1.73 m2.ConclusionEsaxerenone demonstrated a BP-lowering effect and improved albuminuria. The effects were consistent regardless of the severity of albuminuria without clinically relevant serum potassium elevation and eGFR reduction.Clinical trial registrationjRCTs06119002.
| S-EPMC9449923 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is insufficient evidence to support visceral leishmaniasis (VL) treatment recommendations in Brazil and an urgent need to improve current treatments. Drug combinations may be an option.MethodsA multicenter, randomized, open label, controlled trial was conducted in five sites in Brazil to evaluate efficacy and safety of (i) amphotericin B deoxycholate (AmphoB) (1 mg/kg/day for 14 days), (ii) liposomal amphotericin B (LAMB) (3 mg/kg/day for 7 days) and (iii) a combination of LAMB (10 mg/kg single dose) plus meglumine antimoniate (MA) (20 mg Sb+5/kg/day for 10 days), compared to (iv) standard treatment with MA (20 mg Sb+5/kg/day for 20 days). Patients, aged 6 months to 50 years, with confirmed VL and without HIV infection were enrolled in the study. Primary efficacy endpoint was clinical cure at 6 months. A planned efficacy and safety interim analysis led to trial interruption.Results378 patients were randomized to the four treatment arms: MA (n = 112), AmphoB (n = 45), LAMB (n = 109), or LAMB plus MA (n = 112). A high toxicity of AmphoB prompted an unplanned interim safety analysis and this treatment arm was dropped. Per intention-to-treat protocol final analyses of the remaining 332 patients show cure rates at 6 months of 77.5% for MA, 87.2% for LAMB, and 83.9% for LAMB plus MA, without statistically significant differences between the experimental arms and comparator (LAMB: 9.7%; CI95% -0.28 to 19.68, p = 0.06; LAMB plus MA: 6.4%; CI95% -3.93 to 16.73; p = 0.222). LAMB monotherapy was safer than MA regarding frequency of treatment-related adverse events (AE) (p = 0.045), proportion of patients presenting at least one severe AE (p = 0.029), and the proportion of AEs resulting in definitive treatment discontinuation (p = 0.003).ConclusionsDue to lower toxicity and acceptable efficacy, LAMB would be a more suitable first line treatment for VL than standard treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov identification number: NCT01310738.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01310738.
| S-EPMC5507560 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Daily glatiramer acetate (GA) 20 mg/1.0 mL is a first-line treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). To reduce the occurrence of injection pain and local injection site reactions (LISRs), a reduced volume formulation of GA was developed. This study compared pain and LISRs after injecting the marketed and the novel formulations. RRMS patients currently injecting GA participated in this multicenter, randomized, crossover comparative study. All patients administered once-daily subcutaneous injections of GA 20 mg/1.0 mL (marketed formulation) or GA 20 mg/0.5 mL (reduced volume formulation) for 14 days. Patients were crossed-over to the alternate treatment for an additional 14 days. Using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), patients recorded in daily diaries the severity of injection pain immediately and 5 min post-injection, and the presence and severity of LISRs (swelling, redness, itching, lump) within 5 min and 24 h post-injection. VAS pain scores were ranked significantly lower immediately and 5 min after GA 20 mg/0.5 mL injections (p < 0.0001). Although LISRs were rare for both preparations, the severity of reactions ranked significantly lower and fewer symptoms occurred within 5 min and 24 h of using the reduced volume formulation (p < 0.0001). GA injected subcutaneously in a reduced volume formulation is a more tolerable option.
| S-EPMC2977058 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDysmenorrhea is a common condition in women, which is characterized by menstrual pain. Low-dose estrogen/progestin combined oral contraceptives have been shown to reduce the severity of dysmenorrhea symptoms, and a 28-day cyclic regimen of ethinylestradiol/drospirenone (28d regimen) is approved for this indication in Japan.AimThe aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of a flexible extended regimen of ethinylestradiol/drospirenone (flexible regimen) in Japanese women with dysmenorrhea.MethodsThis multicenter, open-label study was performed in Japanese women with dysmenorrhea who, after a baseline observational phase, were randomized to receive ethinylestradiol 20 μg/drospirenone 3 mg in a flexible regimen (one tablet each day for 24-120 days followed by a 4-day tablet-free interval) or in the standard 28d regimen (one tablet each day for 24 days, followed by 4 days of placebo tablets for six cycles). The primary endpoint was the number of days with dysmenorrhea of at least mild intensity over a 140-day evaluation period. Dysmenorrhea scores, bleeding patterns, and other pain-related parameters were also assessed.ResultsA total of 216 women (mean age 29.7 years) were randomized to the flexible regimen (n=108) or 28d regimen (n=108) and 212 were included in the full analysis sets (flexible regimen, n=105; 28d regimen, n=107). Women in the flexible-regimen group reported a mean of 3.4 fewer days with dysmenorrheic pain than women in the 28d-regimen group, with similar decreases in disease severity reported in both treatment groups. According to the investigators, 64.8% and 59.4% of women in the flexible-regimen and 28d-regimen treatment groups had "very much improved" or "much improved" disease, while 54.3% and 50.9% of patients reported being "very much satisfied" or "much satisfied" with their treatment, respectively.ConclusionIn Japanese women with dysmenorrhea, a flexible extended regimen of ethinylestradiol/drospirenone decreased the number of days with dysmenorrheic pain versus the traditional 28d regimen.
| S-EPMC5422539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAbnormal glutamatergic neurotransmission is implicated in the pathophysiology of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In this study, the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the glutamatergic N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist memantine (once-daily extended-release [ER]) were investigated in children with autism in a randomized, placebo-controlled, 12 week trial and a 48 week open-label extension.MethodsA total of 121 children 6-12 years of age with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR)-defined autistic disorder were randomized (1:1) to placebo or memantine ER for 12 weeks; 104 children entered the subsequent extension trial. Maximum memantine doses were determined by body weight and ranged from 3 to 15?mg/day.ResultsThere was one serious adverse event (SAE) (affective disorder, with memantine) in the 12 week study and one SAE (lobar pneumonia) in the 48 week extension; both were deemed unrelated to treatment. Other AEs were considered mild or moderate and most were deemed not related to treatment. No clinically significant changes occurred in clinical laboratory values, vital signs, or electrocardiogram (ECG). There was no significant between-group difference on the primary efficacy outcome of caregiver/parent ratings on the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS), although an improvement over baseline at Week 12 was observed in both groups. A trend for improvement at the end of the 48 week extension was observed. No improvements in the active group were observed on any of the secondary end-points, with one communication measure showing significant worsening with memantine compared with placebo (p?=?0.02) after 12 weeks.ConclusionsThis trial did not demonstrate clinical efficacy of memantine ER in autism; however, the tolerability and safety data were reassuring. Our results could inform future trial design in this population and may facilitate the investigation of memantine ER for other clinical applications.
| S-EPMC5510039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeAcute trauma pain management in the elderly population is a challenge. Inhaled methoxyflurane represents a promising treatment option; however, data in the elderly population are limited.Patients and methodsSubgroup, post hoc analysis including 69 patients aged ≥65 years from a randomized, active-controlled, open-label study in the emergency setting. Key inclusion criterion was moderate-to-severe pain (Numerical Rating Scale [NRS] score ≥ 4]) secondary to trauma in a single limb. Patients received inhaled methoxyflurane (3 mL) or standard analgesic treatment (SAT; IV paracetamol 1 g or ketoprofen 100 mg for moderate pain [NRS 4-6] and IV morphine 0.1mg/kg for severe pain [NRS ≥7]). The primary endpoint was the overall change in visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity from randomization to the next 3, 5, and 10 min. Secondary endpoints included time to onset of pain relief (TOPR), efficacy up to 30 min, judgment of operators and patients, and safety.ResultsPain reduction over time was similar in both groups. Median TOPR was shorter for methoxyflurane (9 min; 95% CI: 7.8, 10.2 min) than SAT (15 min; 95% CI: 10.2, 19.8 min). In terms of treatment satisfaction, patients and operators rated treatment efficacy and practicality, respectively, as "Excellent" or "Very good" 5.7 times and 3.4 times more frequently than SAT. A similar rate of adverse events (methoxyflurane: 6 events; SAT: 7 events) was recorded, all non-serious. No clinically significant changes in vital signs parameters were observed, and methoxyflurane did not result in cases of bradycardia or hypotension.ConclusionIn elderly patients with trauma pain, inhaled methoxyflurane shows similar pain relief and safety compared to SAT, offering advantages in terms of onset of effect and user's satisfaction. Although this analysis presents some methodological limitations, it provides the first specific evidence of the use of inhaled methoxyflurane in the elderly population.Trial registrationEudraCT number: 2017-001565-25; Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03585374.
| S-EPMC7371437 | biostudies-literature